a survey of small-scale rural aquaculture in · pdf filea survey of small-scale rural...

This paper should be cited as: Chirindza, I.A. 2010. A survey of small-scale rural aquaculture in Mozambique. United Nations University Fisheries Training Programme, Iceland [final project]. http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/isac09prf.pdf

unuftp.is Final Project 2009

A SURVEY OF SMALL-SCALE RURAL AQUACULTURE IN

MOZAMBIQUE

Isac Abel Chirindza

National Institute of Aquaculture Development

Rua Consiglieri Pedroso 347, 20 Andar

C.P 1723, Maputo, Mozambique

[email protected]

Supervisor:

Prof. Helgi Thorarensen

Holar University College

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The National Institute of Aquaculture Development conducted a survey of small-scale rural

aquaculture in Mozambique in 2007. The objective of this project was to analyse information

collected through a questionnaire presented to fish farms as a part of the survey. The small hold

fish farms are primarily small-scale extensive or semi-intensive producers of tilapia for

consumption on the farms. In most of the farms, aquaculture is a secondary activity with other

agriculture. The average production of a farm is 42 kg/year and the average yield is 1

mt/ha/year. The annual production in small hold fish farms in Mozambique was estimated as

179 mt in 2007 and multiplying the number of ponds with the average production of 25

kg/pond/year derived this number. However, the results of the survey suggest that this number

is too high and that the average production is 9.3 kg/pond/year giving actual production of 67

mt/year. The questionnaire is a very useful tool to assess the status of small hold aquaculture

in Mozambique. However, the questionnaire should be revised and improved.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Chirindza

UNU – Fisheries Training Programme 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 3

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 PRODUCTION SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 10

3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................... 12 3.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 SPECIFICS OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 12

4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 13

5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.1 LOCATION OF FISH FARMS IN THE SURVEY ................................................................................................ 14 5.2 OWNERSHIP AND ORGANISATION OF FISH FARMS ................................................................................... 14 5.3 FISH FARMERS AND PEOPLE DEPENDING ON THE PRODUCTION FOR SUSTENANCE ........................... 15 5.4 LABOUR ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME THAN FISH FARMING .................................................................................. 16 5.6 POND SIZE AND STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 16 5.7 MAINTENANCE STATUS OF FARMED SPECIES USED IN SMALL HOLD FISH FARMS ............................... 17 5.8 SPECIES FARMED ........................................................................................................................................... 18 5.9 FEEDING AND FERTILIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 18 5.10 THE AGE OF THE FISH FARMS ...................................................................................................................... 19 5.11 AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 19 5.12 CORRELATIONS OF SOME VARIABLES AFFECTING PRODUCTION ............................................................ 21 5.13 DESTINATION OF FISH PRODUCED .............................................................................................................. 23 5.14 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 24 5.15 PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL HOLD FARMS ............................................................................................... 25

6 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1 LOCATION OF FISH FARMS IN THE SURVEY ................................................................................................ 26 6.2 OWNERSHIP AND ORGANISATION OF FISH FARMS ................................................................................... 26 6.3 INVOLVEMENT OF WOMEN IN SMALL HOLD FARMS ASSOCIATIONS ...................................................... 26 6.4 FISH FARMERS AND PEOPLE DEPENDING ON THE PRODUCTION FOR SUSTENANCE ........................... 26 6.5 LABOUR ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 6.6 OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME THAN FISH FARMING .................................................................................. 27 6.7 POND SIZE AND STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 27 6.8 MAINTENANCE STATUS OF FARMED SPECIES USED IN SMALL HOLD FISH FARMS ............................... 27 6.9 SPECIES FARMED ........................................................................................................................................... 27 6.10 FEEDING AND FERTILIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 28 6.11 AGE OF FARM.................................................................................................................................................. 28 6.12 AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 28 6.13 CORRELATIONS OF SOME VARIABLES AFFECTING PRODUCTION ............................................................ 28 6.14 DESTINATION OF FISH PRODUCED .............................................................................................................. 29 6.15 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 29 6.16 PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL HOLD FARMS ............................................................................................... 29

7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 29

8 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 30

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 31

Chirindza


LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 32

ANNEX 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 34

ANNEX 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Geographical location of Mozambique ...................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Aquaculture in different provinces. The figure shows the aquaculture projects and

number of small hold fish farms in Mozambique (INAQUA 2010) ................................. 7 Figure 3: Evolution of the total aquaculture production in Mozambique (Fishstat 2010) ......... 8 Figure 4: Others source of income of fish farmers .................................................................. 16 Figure 5: Size of ponds in small hold fish farms ..................................................................... 17 Figure 6: Conservation status of fish farms ............................................................................. 17 Figure 7: Source of feed used by the farms ............................................................................. 18 Figure 8: The year when the fish farms started operation ....................................................... 19 Figure 9: Annual production of farms surveyed in 2007 ......................................................... 20 Figure 10: Annual production in ponds ................................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Annual yield in different small hold fish farms ..................................................... 21 Figure 12: The total production of small hold farms of different age. The figure shows the

combined average production of farms in different age .................................................. 21 Figure 13: Average annual harvest of farms of different age .................................................. 22 Figure 14: Annual production and yield of farms .................................................................... 23 Figure 15: Destination of fish production from small hold fish farm ...................................... 23 Figure 16: Fishing gear using in small hold fish farms ........................................................... 24 Figure 17: Provision of technical assistance ............................................................................ 24 Figure 18: Frequency of technical assistance .......................................................................... 25 Figure 19: Source of problems in small hold fish farms .......................................................... 25

Chirindza


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Estimated aquaculture production, number of ponds and the number of beneficiaries

in small scale freshwater aquaculture in Mozambique in 2009 (INAQUA 2010) ............ 8 Table 2 : SWOT analysis of the development of the small scale aquaculture in Mozambique

(Mapfumo et al. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Number of ponds in different provinces. The table shows the total number of ponds

and ponds surveyed in 2007 ............................................................................................. 14

Chirindza


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Mozambique lies on the eastern coast of southern Africa, between of 10º 27’ and 26º 52’ south

latitude. It borders with the Republic of Tanzania to the north, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe,

South Africa and Swaziland to the west, and South Africa to the south. The east coast of

Mozambique is on the Indian Ocean with coastal line about 2.780 km. The country has an area

of about 799.380 square kilometres. Administratively, the country is divided into 11 provinces

and 128 districts, administrative posts and localities. There are 33 municipalities, comprising

the major urban centres, including 10 provincial capitals and the country’s capital, Maputo,

which also has provincial status (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Geographical location of Mozambique.

In 2007 the population was estimated at 20.632.434 million where 51, 9% are women. The

annual population growth rate is 2, 8 percent. Eighty percent of the population lives in rural

areas (INE 2010) where agriculture and livestock are of central importance to livelihoods.

The climate varies in the different regions of the country, but generally the inland areas are

slightly cooler, although more humid than along the coast in the rainy season. Winter is the dry

season lasting from April to September. The southern parts of the country are generally drier

Chirindza


and less tropical than the north, with temperatures along the coast averaging 27°C. The rainy

season coincides with the heat and humidity from October to March, with average coastal

temperatures of 31°C. Mozambique has some 60 major rivers, lakes and lagoons, unpolluted

environment and availability of suitable local species for aquaculture.

Mozambique’s agro-climate is strongly differentiated by three zones (MICOA 2007):

“1. The northern zone of the Zambezi River is humid, with a distinct rainy season.

Generally, water is available for crops for a full growing season, with drought conditions

occurring only twice every ten years.

2. The central region, between the south of the Zambezi River and the north of the

Save River, experiences drought conditions approximately four years in every ten.

3. The southern region has a high risk of drought conditions, with drought conditions seven out

of every ten years.”

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Aquaculture is a relatively recent activity in Mozambique. Fish culture in Mozambique started

in the 1950s with the construction of embankment ponds for fish culture for farms workers in

the provinces of Zambézia, Nampula and Manica. The colonial government built three research

and demonstration centres in the early 1960s (IFPRI 2007). These were in Umbeluzi (0, 5 ha),

Sussundenga (20 ha) and Chokwé (1, 6 ha). The main goal was to restock dams, lakes and

natural reservoirs. These facilities were abandoned during the civil war and are currently

degraded (Mapfumo et al. 2009, FAO 2010a).

According to FAO more than 258 000 hectares of land are available for small-scale freshwater

aquaculture in Mozambique (MIPE 2007). However, it is estimated that presently only around

2,000 ha are used for fish farming. Recent studies (2009) showed the availability of 77.592,90

ha for earth ponds, 32.124,30 ha for cages and 10.590,73 ha for seaweeds that could be suitable

for development of marine aquaculture (INAQUA 2010).

Currently, there are mainly two types of aquaculture in Mozambique: The culture of marine

prawns in semi-intensive systems (MIPE 2007) with annual production of 1000 tonnes.

Secondly, there is freshwater aquaculture in Mozambique, which has been growing since the

early 1990s. Around 5500 people are involved in subsistence aquaculture in ponds as a part-

time activity, of whom 3 500 are in tilapia extensive farming and 2000 in seaweed farming

(FAO 2010a).

Many ponds in certain provinces such as Manica were set-up through funded projects such as

the ALCOM programme (FAO 2010a). The small-scale fish production is currently estimated

about 158 tonnes of freshwater fish a year (Table 1). This production comes from 8.035 ponds

(100-400 m2) in different parts of the country. Small-scale fish culture is most common in the

provinces of Manica, Niassa and Zambezia (Figure 2), where around 2000 families are

involved.

Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus, Tilapia rendalli) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) are

most commonly farmed and a limited production of catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Other

cultivated species include nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon

idella), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and bighead carp (Aristichtys nobilis). The

Chirindza


freshwater prawn (Machrobrachium rosenbergii) is also grown in Mozambique (MIPE 2007,

Mapfumo 2009, Mapfumo et al. 2009 and FAO 2010a).

Figure 2: Aquaculture in different provinces. The figure shows the aquaculture projects and

number of small hold fish farms in Mozambique (INAQUA 2010).

Small scale seaweed farming

(Pemba community) 22, 7 tonnes in

2009

Existing large scale shrimp farm

(Larvae stage 200 million ton/year)

2408 fish ponds

Proposed large scale cage culture,

fish farm; 749 fish ponds

Existing small scale cage fish farm

(18 ton/year); 1700 fish ponds

Existing large scale shrimp farm

(Larvae stage 80 million ton/year)

Proposed small scale fish farm (15

ton/year) in Maputo province

Small hold fish farms

1000 earthen ponds

Proposed hatchery and brood stock

production centre (1million

fingerlings/year/species)

Chirindza


Table 1: Estimated aquaculture production, number of ponds and the number of beneficiaries

in small-scale freshwater aquaculture in Mozambique in 2009 (INAQUA 2010). Province Number of ponds Number of beneficiaries Estimate production (Kg)

Maputo 89 252 204

Gaza 97 2.328

Inhambane 72 288 491,66

Manica 1.700 1.236 23.700

Sofala 896 232 6.650

Tete 749 620 18.725*

Zambezia 2.408 60.200*

Nampula 837 311 20.925*

Cabo

Delgado

187 206 266,5

Niassa 1.000 4.705 25.000*

Total 8.035 7.850 158.490,16

*The production was estimated from the number of aquaculture ponds and assuming that the

average production was 25 kg/pond/year.

The aquaculture production was estimated in half of provinces of Mozambique, assuming that

the average production was 25 kg/pond /year. This may be unrealistic as conditions for

cultivation vary.

Freshwater culture consists of integrated fish farming systems aimed at improving food safety

and availability to the general population, while marine aquaculture is broadly oriented towards

low-cost protein production and high-value products for export (Menezes 2001).

However aquaculture production in Mozambique decline for 2005-2008 (Figure 3). This

decrease was due to climatic factors, disease and mismanagement, which led to the closing of

one commercial farm.

Figure 3: Evolution of the total aquaculture production in Mozambique (FAO 2010).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

nes

)

years

Chirindza


2.1 Production Systems

Aquaculture production is often classified in terms of intensity and scale of production into

extensive, semi-intensive or intensive:

In extensive aquaculture the inputs are low and the fish primarily feed on food algae and

zooplankton that grows in the water body. Stocking rates are typically low, there is little or no

supplemental feed offered to the fish but low levels of fertilization in the form of manure may

be applied to the ponds. The yield in extensive pond aquaculture is less than 1 mt/ha/year

(Pillay 1993, Suresh 2003).

In semi-intensive aquaculture the ponds are fertilized by manure and inorganic fertilisers are

applied. Normally the cycle production around 6-9 months and the yield varies from 1 to 5

mt/ha/year (Suresh 2003).

In intensive aquaculture input levels are high. The fish feed primarily on complete feed,

stocking rate is high, water exchange is high and measures are taken to aerate or oxygenate the

water to support the high levels of production (Boyd and Tucker 1998, Carballo et al. 2008).

The annual yield in intensive aquaculture is higher than 5 mt/ha/year (Suresh 2003).

In small hold extensive aquaculture, household members usually manage the ponds. These

farms generally do not require capital for running and there is no technical input into the

production. The small-scale systems tend to be rural, and most of the fish is consumed by the

family or sold on the pond bank (Machena and Moehl 2001, Carballo et al. 2008).

Medium- to large-scale systems have a water surface area of five hectares or more or produce

more than 5 mt annually. Medium- and large-scale systems rely on urban markets and may rely

on brokers or middlemen. These systems tend to be capital intensive, relying on bought labour,

external energy sources and mechanization (Machena and Moehl 2001).

In Africa, about 95% of total aquaculture production is provided by small-scale extensive

aquaculture in rural areas. The ponds are usually small (100-500 m2) ponds and fish farming is

integrated with other agricultural activities. The mean yield in small hold fish farms is about

0.5 mt/ha/year, although reported yields vary considerably, from less than 0.1 mt to more than

10 mt/ha/year (Machena and Moehl 2001).

Small hold farms in Mozambique are primarily extensive or semi-intensive. They use seed fish

either form the wild or from hatcheries. There is limited or no use of commercial feed or

equipment for mechanical aeration. Some supplemental feed may be offered but complete feed

is generally not used.

Water used in the fish farms generally flows into the ponds by gravity from springs, seeps

through the subsoil or comes from rivers. There is a general lack of good quality fingerlings,

and mostly they are obtained from the wild or from neighbouring farmers. The tilapia breed in

the ponds to produce fingerlings for subsequent production cycles.

Chirindza


2.2 Technical assistance

Extension services are weak in Mozambique as in most other African countries. The lack of

infrastructure to support aquaculture activities and lack of funds make it difficult to provide

extension services in the whole country. However, collaboration with District Services for

Economic Activities (SDAE) has proven useful.

Alternative extension approaches that rely more on joint learning and evolutionary adoption

have been tested and these might solve some of the problems currently faced in making

productive technology available to fish farmers (Brummett et al. 2008). Through these process,

in 2008-2009, more than 1080 extension workers and fish farmers received capacity building

in Mozambique (INAQUA 2010).

It has been suggested, (Brummett et al. 2008) that Africa has the potential to produce 300 times

the amount of fish currently produced globally. If even a small percentage of this were realized,

fish would be readily available to all African consumers. However, at present, African

aquaculture is still essentially a rural, secondary and part-time activity, taking place in small

farms with small freshwater ponds (Coche et al. 1994, Aguilar- Manjarrez and Nath 1998).

In developing countries, such as Mozambique, where the majority of the population lives in

rural areas and many households depend both on agriculture and livestock, which in turn

depends mostly on the family’s labour, it is important to increase productivity and income.

Aquaculture can contribute to the increase of farm productivity and secure higher earnings for

both -family and hired labour (Banze 2005).

Of the 3.6 million farm households in Mozambique, 24% are headed by women; and women

are the principal producers of food crops for household consumption. Most household

production is handled by women who, compared with men, have less access to improved

agricultural technologies and credit (USG 2010).

The Gender Strategy for the Agrarian Sector founded in Mozambique in 2005 aims at assuring

access to and control over resources, benefits, rights and equal opportunities between women

and men. It is intended to enhance the capacity of vulnerable farmers, to improve food security

and family income in order to contribute to poverty alleviation and a sustainable development

incorporating a gender perspective (Ribeiro and Chaúque 2010).

A development plan will be implemented in Mozambique, to improve productivity and

production in small-scale aquaculture, in the family sector. This identified constraints and

potentials for the growth of these fish farms to become effective small family businesses. A

part of the Small Scale Aquaculture Development Plan for Mozambican (Mapfumo et al. 2009)

was a SWOT analysis of the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats of developing the

Mozambican small-scale aquaculture. This SWOT analysis was performed by INFOSA

(Intergovernmental Organization for Marketing Information and Technical Advisory Services

for the fisheries Industry in Southern Africa) on aquaculture in Mozambique in 2009. The main

results are presented in Table 2.

Chirindza


Table 2: SWOT analysis of the development of the small-scale aquaculture in Mozambique

(Mapfumo et al. 2009).

Strengths

• Availability of land and good quality water for aquaculture

• Stable political and business environment

• Species diversity

• Unpolluted environment

• Government priority

• Willingness of small scale farmers to produce crops for fish feed

Weaknesses

• Lack of infrastructures and logistics

• Weak capacity (trained personnel) and coordination between institutions

• Few incentives for development in aquaculture

• Heavy tax regimes and lending rates

• Substantial post harvest losses and poor quality assurance

• Little value added products/ product development/innovations

• Over reliance on EU markets

• Poor knowledge of market requirements/trends

• Expensive fish feed and lack of local inputs

Minimal local distribution network and Language barriers

Opportunities

• Build necessary infrastructures

• Build capacity and train stakeholders

• Review tax regimes / incentives and lending rates

• Encourage investors and FDI

• Encourage fish feed production/ feed formulation

• Encourage applied research and development

• Huge demand for fish and quality products

• Introduction of new species

• Encourage commercial farms to help in implementing projects with small scale

farmers by government providing project start-up funding, and funding for field work.

Threats

• Lack of finance

• Negligible FDI and donors assistance

• High fuel cost

• Lack of innovation capacity and re investment to improve productivity and

efficiency

• Natural catastrophes (cyclones, floods, etc)

• Bad management of fish diseases

• Bureaucracy

The main results of the SWOT analysis are that Mozambique has access to land and good

quality water for aquaculture, a stable business environment and aquaculture is a Government

priority. The main constraints to aquaculture development are poor infrastructures, lack of good

quality fingerlings; fish feed, weak technical assistance and difficulty to access credit.

However, the INAQUA is planning to set up an aquaculture demonstration and training centre

in Chokwe, in Gaza province. If this development goes ahead it will improve brood stocks used

by small-scale farmers, improve yields and support production practices. The centre is expected

to increase technological transfer to farmers and extension technicians at provincial and district

levels. The main opportunities are review tax regimes, introduction of new species and

encourage commercial farms to help in implementing projects with small scale farmers by

government providing projects start-up funding and funding for field work and the main threats

are high fuel cost and natural catastrophes like cyclones, floods and drought.

Chirindza


Rationale

In July to December 2007 the Ministry of Fisheries, Aquaculture Department, conducted a

survey in Mozambique of small scale fish farms into assess the stage of development of

aquaculture in the country. The objective of the survey was to obtain basic information on the

extent and nature of small hold aquaculture.

In June 2008, the government of Mozambique established the National Institute for

Aquaculture Development (INAQUA) as part of its strategy to develop aquaculture in

Mozambique approved on the 21st August 2008. INAQUA is responsible for forming

aquaculture development policies, technical legislation and development plans; extension and

management. It is also responsible for collecting statistics on aquaculture, analysis and

processing data in small-scale rural aquaculture in Mozambique.

It is important to conduct a thorough survey of small hold aquaculture in Mozambique to assess

the level of development of small-scale fish culture in each province or district. This is

important to determine the type of technical and financial support needed by fish farmers. The

survey in 2007 was the first of a series of identical surveys that are intended to assess the growth

and development of aquaculture in Mozambique and its impact on communities. Mozambique

does not have in place an effective system to collect statistics on aquaculture production. Yet

this is very important for monitoring and evaluating the development of small hold fish farms

and the impact of government programmes on aquaculture production. The questionnaire is

intended to be an important tool in collecting information on aquaculture in Mozambique.

3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

In this study, the data of the first survey were analyzed and revised the questionnaire for

collecting information.

3.1 General objective

The general objective of the project is to summarise baseline data on small-scale aquaculture

in Mozambique and revise the questionnaire for collecting information. The main objective of

this project is to analyse information collected through a questionnaire presented to fish farmers

in 2007 as a part of the survey.

3.2 Specifics objectives

The specific objectives of this study were:

1. To collect information about small hold fish farms in Mozambique including:

a. Background information on fish farmers.

b. Ownership and running form of farms.

c. The number of people who depend on the fish farm for sustenance.

d. The number of women involved.

e. Information on farms and farmers

i. What other sources of income the farmers have

ii. Method of farming

iii. Species produced

iv. Source of water

Chirindza


v. Size and number of ponds

vi. Age of the farm

2. Information on farm management:

a. Feeding of fish and fertilization of ponds.

b. Methods of harvesting

c. Labour

3. Information on environmental impact of farming and the conservation status of the

species farmed.

4. Quantity of harvest and destination of harvested fish.

5. Level of assistance and advice sought by the farmers.

6. The main problems faced by the farmers.

4 METHODOLOGY

Several teams of technicians from the National Institute of Aquaculture Development, the

provincial fisheries offices, and extension officers of the District Services for Economic

Activities (SDAE) conducted the survey.

Three technicians carried out the survey over a period of 15 days in each province. There is a

paucity of information on small-scale fish farms in Mozambique and no central registration of

fish farms. Therefore, the technicians consulted local fish farmers about the location of other

fish farmers. To cover the entire province, it was necessary to use a 4x4 vehicle and work in

collaboration with the fish farmers. However, it was not always possible to use the car because

of poor road condition. The teams were instructed to work in partnership with provincial

directories of fisheries to continue the survey.

In this project, data from the survey in 2007 was analysed using the Microsoft Excel program.

The data was entered into a spreadsheet and analysed using PIVOT tables for descriptive

statistics (average, frequency and variation). SPSS was used to analyse correlations of some

variables affecting production (Pearson correlation).

Chirindza


5 RESULTS

5.1 Location of fish farms in the survey

The survey in 2007 was conducted in eight provinces of Mozambique (Table 3) . Most of the

fish farms were in the provinces of Manica, Nampula, Zambezia and Niassa provinces (Table

4). These are also the provinces where most fish farms are located. The total number of fish

farms included 285 or 18% of the estimated total number of ponds in Mozambique (Table 3).

Table 3: Number of ponds in different provinces. The table shows the total number of ponds

and ponds surveyed in 2007.

Province Total number of ponds * Number of ponds surveyed Proportion %

Cabo

Delgado

61 6 10

Manica 1828 244 13

Maputo 97 45 46

Nampula 836 233 28

Niassa 766 199 26

Sofala 391 39 10

Tete 664 325 49

Zambezia 2371 198 8

Gaza 92 - -

Inhambane 64 - -

Total 7170 1289 18

*Source: MIPE 2008

5.2 Ownership and organisation of fish farms

The small hold fish farms are organized in associations or individually. In this survey

association is a group or co-operative of fish farmers who have joined together to develop

aquaculture activities in individual or common ponds in the same area.

Of the farms included in the survey, 73 (26%) were members of associations and family owned

farms were 212 (74%). In the provinces of Manica (93%), Nampula (81%) and Zambézia

(73%) the majority of farms were family owned. However, in the provinces of Cabo Delgado

(100%), Tete (58%) and Niassa (56%) most of the farms were associations (Table 4).

Chirindza


Table 4: The number of associations and family farms sampled in the survey. Province Association % Family % Total number of farms

Cabo Delgado 100,0 0,0 4

Manica 7,0 93,0 104

Maputo 31,0 69,0 13

Nampula 19,0 81,0 58

Niassa 56,0 44,0 34

Sofala 33,0 67,0 9

Tete 58,0 42,0 26

Zambezia 27,0 73,0 37

Grand Total 26,0 74,0 285

The survey showed that the women were involved in 71% of the farm associations.

5.3 Fish farmers and people depending on the production for sustenance

The fish farmers produce for people dependent and beneficiaries. Dependent is a person that is

supported by the fish farmer, usually family members. Beneficiaries can either be direct or

indirect.

The direct beneficiaries include dependents (family members) and indirect beneficiaries

include buyers who buy fish from the ponds, neighbours or even extended relations.

Beneficiaries can also be students at a school that uses fish from the fish farms. This is the

largest group of beneficiaries in this study.

For the farms surveyed in the questionnaire, the total number of people who relied on the fish

farms for food was 3384 family members (dependents) and 3874 other beneficiaries that were

not part of the families (Table 5). However, the distinctions between the two groups in the

survey is not very clear and the same people appear to be counted both as dependents and

beneficiaries since the questionnaire lists the same number of dependents and beneficiaries in

73% of the farms. The total number of beneficiaries in farms where there are no dependents

(27%) is 2211. This suggests that the total number of people that depend on fish from the farms

for food is 5595 or 19, 6 people per farm on average.

Table 5: The number of dependents and beneficiaries sampled in the survey.

Province Dependents Beneficiaries

Cabo Delgado 52

Manica 982 889

Maputo 361 88

Nampula 564 1578

Niassa 642 175

Sofala 54 61

Tete 457 603

Zambezia 272 480

Total 3384 3874

Chirindza


5.4 Labour

In total, 57% of the farms relied on family as labour while other farms depended on other

members of the association (20%), hired staff (20%) or found other labour (3%), mainly

students. Farms where both family and hired personnel worked on the farm were 9% of the

total. The mean distance from fish farm to the residence of the fish farmer ranged from 1m to

35km but the average distance was 900 m.

5.5 Other sources of income than fish farming

Nearly all the farmers had other sources of income than aquaculture (Figure 4), mainly in

agriculture (97%) and livestock (75%). Less than 10% had income from handicraft, coal

production and carpentry. About 15% had other sources of income than listed above and most

of those were in business.

Figure 4: Others source of income of fish farmers.

5.6 Pond size and structure

Most of the fish farms (98%) used earthen ponds to grow the fish and only 2% of the farms

used cement ponds, embankments or lagoons. The size of the ponds ranged from 8-1600 m2

(Figure 10) with a mean size of 134 m2. The most common size range of ponds was 76-100 m2

and 61% of the ponds were 150 m2 or less (Figure 5).Also, the average number of ponds in

each fish farm was 4,5 ponds/farm.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Agriculture Livestock Handicraft Coal production Carpentry Other

Chirindza


Figure 5: Size of ponds in small hold fish farms.

Three farms used brackish water while the rest of the farms used freshwater. Most commonly

the water flowed into the fish ponds from the subsoil by gravity (46%). Some of the farms

received water from springs (30%) and rivers (22%) via purpose built canals.

In total, 77% of the ponds were in use and 23% not in use.

5.7 Maintenance status of farmed species used in small hold fish farms

Most of the farmers (95%) considered the conservation status (Figure 6) of the species farmed

to be good or at least acceptable while only 5% thought that it was poor. However, it is not

clear what is meant by good conservation status.

Figure 6: Conservation status of fish farms.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 125 150 175 200 300 400 More

Fre

qu

ency

Size of ponds (m²)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Good Acceptable Poor

Chirindza


5.8 Species farmed

The most common aquaculture species (Table 6) was tilapia, which was farmed in 94% of the

fish farms. Common carp was farmed in 5% of the fish farms and other species (catfish and

not identified) were grown in 1% of the farms. The weight at harvest of fish was 100-500 g

(average weight 300 g).

Table 6: Most common aquaculture species. Species Scientific name

Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus

Tilapia Tilapia rendalli

Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Catfish Clarias gariepinus

Other 0, 67% not identified

5.9 Feeding and fertilization

The most common supplementary feed presented was corn bran (Figure 7) vegetables and food

scraps. Less than 1% of the farms used prepared feed. Other feed sources were primarily

cassava leaves and termites. Only 1% of the farms did not feed the fish or apply fertilizer to

the ponds. In total, 19% of the ponds were fertilized with manure. The questionnaire did not

ask about the quantity of feed or manure used.

Figure 7: Source of feed used by the farms.

Series1; Food

scraps; 21%; 21%

Series1; Vegetables; 24%; 24%

Series1; Nothing; 0%; 0%

Series1; Corn bran; 27%;

27%

Series1; Manure;

19%; 20%

Series1;

Factory made

fish feed; 0%; 0%

Series1; Sorghum; 2%; 2%

Series1; Millet; 0%;

0%

Series1; Rice; 1%; 1%

Series1; Other; 5%; 5%

Food scraps Vegetables Nothing

Corn bran Manure Factory made fish feed

Sorghum Millet Rice

Other

Chirindza


5.10 The age of the fish farms

The oldest fish farm visited was founded in 1976 while, 75% of the farms had been operated

for five years or less (Figure 8). However, the number of new small hold fish farms increased

from 2002-2005 but decreased in 2006 and 2007.

Figure 8: The year when the fish farms started operation.

5.11 Aquaculture production

When all the data was included the average yield in the fish farms was 6571 kg/ha. This is a

high value for extensive aquaculture where the expected yield is up to 1500 kg/ha. In semi-

intensive aquaculture the expected yield is 1 500-15 000 kg/ha year. The information provided

on the farms in the on Therefore, the data set was revised to include only fish farms where

complete data was supplied on pond number, pond size and production while excluding all

farms with a yield over 15 000 kg/ha. When the farms with incomplete data and the outliers

were excluded the data set included 192 farms.

In the revised data set the average of yield was 1mt/year. There was no reported production in

37 fish farms. These were farms either did not produce any fish or were less than one year old

and had not produced any harvest yet (Figure 11).

Most of fish farms produced less than 200 kg/year and average farm production was 42 kg/year

(Figure 9). About 160 (56%) of the fish farms produced less than 21kg or nothing at all and

few farms produced more than 1000 kg/year (Figure 9)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%F

req

ue

ncy

year

Chirindza


Figure 9: Annual production of farms surveyed in 2007.

The annual production in most of fish ponds was less than 20 kg/year (average 9,3Kg/pond)

and 75 fish ponds produced less than 1kg or nothing (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Annual production in ponds.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fre

qu

ency

Annual production (kg/year)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fre

qu

ency

Annual production (kg / pond year)

Chirindza


Figure 11: Annual yield in different small hold fish farms.

5.12 Correlations of some variables affecting production

Figure 12: The total productions of small hold farms of different age. The figure shows the

combined average production of farms in different age.

Farms that are less than five years old are responsible for about 95% of the freshwater

aquaculture production in Mozambique (Figure 12). The reason for this is that farms that are

less than five years old both have higher average annual production than older farms (Figure

13) and they are more numerous (Figure 8).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fre

qu

ency

Yield (kg/hectare)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 5 10 15 20 25

%

Age of farm (years)

Contribution to total harvest

Chirindza


Figure 13: Average annual harvest of farms of different age.

To examine what contributes to the higher annual production in younger farms several factors

were correlated with annual production.

Table 7: Multiple correlations of factors that can affect the annual production. The table shows

both the Pearson correlation coefficient and the significance level of the correlation.

The factors that mainly affected the annual production of the farms were primarily associated

with yield. There was a significant negative correlation between the age of farms and yield.

Moreover, annual production was positively correlated with yield (Figure 14) as was the

correlation between harvest/pond and annual harvest. However, correlation between annual

harvest and pond number or total area of ponds was not significant (Table 7).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ave

rage

an

nu

al h

arve

st (

kg)

Age of farm

Average annual harvest / farm

An

nu

al

harvest

Harvest /

po

nd

Yield

Average p

on

d

size

Average p

on

d

nu

mb

er

Total area o

f

po

nd

s in farm

Age of farm Pearson Correlation -0.44689 -0.46634 -0.51647 -0.11319 -0.27775 -0.26785

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.072113 0.059175 0.033787 0.665335 0.280417 0.298611

Annual harvest / farm Pearson Correlation 0.642425 0.689667 0.297298 0.403 0.376889

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00542 0.002189 0.246512 0.108729 0.135902

Harvest / pond Pearson Correlation 0.94847 0.11607 0.121142 0.121017

Sig. (2-tailed) 6.92E-09 0.657317 0.643259 0.643603

Yield Pearson Correlation 0.143849 0.258518 0.221751

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.581766 0.316404 0.392339

Average pond size Pearson Correlation 0.649357 0.769942

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004789 0.0003

Average number of ponds Pearson Correlation 0.941333

Sig. (2-tailed) 1.79E-08

Chirindza


Figure 14: Annual production and yield of farms.

5.13 Destination of fish produced

Most of the fish farms produce for own household consumption (80%) as shown in (Figure

15). In total 23% of the farms sell fish commercially and, 3% of fish production sold for

stocking.

Figure 15: Destination of fish production from small hold fish farm.

Most of the farms used fishing nets, hooks and mosquito nets to harvest the fish (Figure 16).

Thus, 71% farms did partial harvests, i.e. harvested only part of the fish in the ponds each time,

while 15% of farms harvested all the fish from the pond. Farms where fish had never been

harvested were 14%.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 500 1000 1500 2000

An

nu

al p

rod

uct

ion

(kg

/ye

ar)

Yield (kg/ha)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Housholdconsumption or

associated

Sale forconsumption

Sale of juveniles Other

Chirindza


Figure 16: Fishing gear using in small hold fish farms.


About 60% of the farms sought specialist assistance when starting the farm and also while

running it. Moreover about 23% of the fish farmers sought advice either initially or while

running the farms. However, 19% of the farms never sought advice. Most of the farms received

technical assistance from District Services for Economic Activities (SDAE) (Figure 17), while

fewer received technical assistance from INAQUA and NGO, neighbouring farmers and owner

fish farmer.

Figure 17: Provision of technical assistance.

Those seeking technical assistance did so most commonly four times each year (Figure 18)

while 19% never sought advice.

Series1; Fishing nets; 43%; 43%

Series1; Mosquito net;

26%; 26%

Series1; Hook; 30%; 30%

Series1; Other fishing gear;

1%; 1%

Fishing nets

Mosquito net

Hook

Other fishing gear

Series1; SDAE; 60%; 61%

Series1; DPP/SPP; 29%; 29%

Series1; Other; 10%; 10%

SDAE

DPP/SPP

Other

Chirindza


Figure 18: Frequency of technical assistance.

5.15 Problems faced by small hold farms

Most of the farmers (95%) indicated that they had faced problems (Figure 19). The most

common problems encountered were predators and low technical assistance or lack of technical

assistance. Other problems identified were lack of fingerlings, materials and tools for pond

construction, water quality and fishing nets.

Figure 19: Source of problems in small hold fish farms.

Series1; Montly;

29%; 29%

Series1; Quarterly; 39%; 39%

Series1; Semiannual;

5%; 5%

Series1; Annual; 8%;

8%

Series1; Never; 19%;

19%

Frequency of assistance

Montly

Quarterly

Semiannual

Annual

Never

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Chirindza


6 DISCUSSION

This is the first study investigating the basic indicators on rural aquaculture in Mozambique.

The questionnaire addressed a broad range of indicators including: (a) location of fish farms in

the survey, (b) ownership and organisation of fish farms, (c) involvement of women in small

hold farms associations, (d) fish farmers and people depending on the production for

sustenance, (e) labour, (f) other sources of income than fish farming, (g) pond size and

structure, (h) maintenance status of farmed species used in small hold fish farms (i) species

farmed, (j) feeding and fertilization, (k) age of farm, (l) aquaculture production, (m) destination

of fish produced, (n) technical assistance and, (o) problems faced by small hold fish farms.

6.1 Location of fish farms in the survey

Most farms were in Manica, Nampula, Zambezia and Niassa provinces (Table 3). According

to (INAQUA 2010) Manica, Zambezia and Niassa have many fish farms, but Nampula

province has less fish farm than Sofala province (Table 1). However, the survey covered 18%

of small hold fish farms at the time (Table 3). This distribution of fish farms is not according

to actual distribution

6.2 Ownership and Organisation of fish farms

Most of the fish farms were run as family enterprises rather than as part of fish farmer

associations (Table 4).

The province of Cabo Delgado was special in that all farms were parts of associations.

However, the fish farms in this province are few (Table 3) and it is a coastal province with

ready access to fisheries.

6.3 Involvement of women in small hold farms associations

Women were involved in 71% of the farms that were parts of associations. These data indicate

that women are increasingly engaged in activities that were once considered only for men. Jobs

in aquaculture are widely perceived as being dangerous and uncomfortable for women. As a

result women have a low representation in the sector (12% of aquaculture workforce), are

usually in jobs of lower importance and often on a temporary basis (FAO 2006). According to

(USG 2010), in Mozambique women, compared with men, handle most household production

and they have less access to credit.

Postharvest activities are critical for employment and income generation, especially for women

(FAO 2010b).

6.4 Fish farmers and people depending on the production for sustenance

The average number of people depending on the fish farms for food was 19.6/farm. The average

size of rural families in Mozambique is 4.7 persons / household (INE 2004). This suggests that

the small hold fish farms generate food or income for about five households. However, the

average annual per capita consumption of fish in Mozambique is 7-10 kg/year. Therefore,

aquaculture production of the small hold farms is not adequate to meet the needs of the

producers.

Chirindza


6.5 Labour

Most of the farms rely on members of the family as labour. However, 20 % of the farms on

relied on hired labour. In rural area 90% of population are economic only active. Moreover

53.8% of rural population are self-employed (INE 2004).

The fish farms are usually close to the residence of the owner (average distance 900 m). This

is the reason that more half of small hold fish farms are family-run.

6.6 Other sources of income than fish farming

The low production volume and the fact that nearly all farms are also involved in other farming

activities suggest that aquaculture is secondary and not the main source of food and income.

According to (INE 2010) 80% of Mozambicans live in rural areas, where agriculture and

livestock are of central importance to their livelihoods. The main basic food crops cultivated

in rural areas are maize, sorghum, millet, rice, beans, sweet potatoes, groundnuts and cassava

(INE 2010).

6.7 Pond size and structure

Nearly all farms used earthen ponds. The mean size was 134 m2 and the range was from 8-

1600m2. About 23% of existing ponds were not in use. The survey did not address why ponds

were not in use. It is possible that some of the abandoned ponds could be poorly constructed

or located. It may be of interest to address this in further questionnaires.

6.8 Maintenance status of farmed species used in small hold fish farms

Most of the fish farms consider the conservation status of the species farmed as good (Figure

6), but in questionnaire is not clear what is meant conservation status.

6.9 Species farmed

Tilapia sp was the most commonly farmed species (Table 6) in 94% in all the small hold fish

farms while carp and catfish were only found in Manica province. The unidentified species are

probably wild fish. These results are in accord with reports from (MIPE 2007), (Mapfumo

2009) and (FAO 2010a) that the most common farmed fish species are tilapias (Oreochromis

mossambicus, Tilapia rendalli), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio), with low production of

catfish (Clarias gariepinus).

The questionnaire does not specify if the ponds were only stocked once or repeatedly.

However, 1 fish/m2 is well below the recommended levels and INAQUA suggests the stocking

rate of 2-5 fish/m2.

After partial harvest the remaining fingerlings become the stock for the next production cycle.

This practice may in due course result in low yields (Mapfumo 2009).

Chirindza


6.10 Feeding and fertilization

Most of fish farms feed the fish (Figure 7). However, the questionnaire did not inquire about

the quantity of food used.

6.11 Age of farm

The number of small hold fish farms increased 2002-2005 but has decreased in the last two

years. This suggests that decreased interest or decreased incentives for aquaculture among

farmers in recent years. In many country, small hold fish farms is a marginal activity, poorly

integrated into rest of their farming, badly managed, a tendency to be abandoned and less than

optimal productivity.

6.12 Aquaculture production

The average annual production (Figure 9) was 42 kg/farm/year. However about 56% of small

hold fish farms produced less than 21 kg/pond and some produced more than 1tonne/pond/year.

The average annual production was 9, 3 kg/pond (Figure 10) and annual yield (Figure 11) was

1 mt/ha/year. The average weight was 300 g, which is slightly higher than the average for sub-

Saharan countries where the average harvest weight rarely exceeds 100 g (FAO 2006).

Estimations of the number of fish ponds in Mozambique in 2007 made by extension officers

indicate that ponds in small hold fish farms are 7170. The total production in small hold farms

is estimated based on this number and the estimate production per pond (25 kg/pond/year

(INAQUA 2010). This gives an annual production of 179 mt/year in 2007. New estimate of

total production based in 9, 3 kg/pond indicate that small hold fish farms produced 67 mt/year

in 2007. Thus previous estimations of aquaculture production in small hold fish farms where

too high.

A 2005 review on aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa showed that in commercial

fish farming systems, at various levels of intensification, productivity varies from 3-10

tonnes/ha/year and in non-commercial fish farming varies from 0,28 tonnes to 3 ton/ha/year.

Suresh (2003) showed that in extensive pond aquaculture is less than 1 mt/ha/year, semi-

intensive aquaculture the ponds are fertilized by manure and inorganic fertilisers are applied

the yield varies from 1 to 5 mt/ha/ha and in intensive aquaculture the yield is higher than 5

mt/ha/year (Suresh 2003).

If the annual yield in small hold fish was 1mt/ha/year most of the farms in Mozambique are

extensive or semi-intensive producers’ small scale. 6.13 Correlations of some variables affecting production

The (Table 7) showed that exist a significant negative correlation between the age of farms and

yield and significant positive correlation between annual production also yield. The increased

production in farms that are less than five years old is a result of increased number of farms

and yield. Thus the younger farms (Figure 12 and 13) are better managed than farms over 5

years old.

Chirindza


6.14 Destination of fish produced

Most of the fish farms were harvested for household consumption (Figure 12). The harvests

are normally carried out for household consumption (Machena and Moehl 2001), when the

farmer finds a customer to buy the fish (Mapfumo 2009) or for the local barter economy

(Brummett and Williams 2000).


Extension workers in the districts provided technical assistance (Figure 14). The provincial

fisheries offices are located in provincial capitals.

Most farms that received technical assistance did so four times each year. INAQUA has trained

about 1080 people both extension workers and fish farmers to provide technical assistance to

fish farmers in Mozambique.

6.16 Problems faced by small hold farms

In general, all the fish farmers had faced the problems. However, the existence of predators,

weak technical assistance, materials and tools to pond construction, good quality fingerlings,

fish feed is a reality. This was also observed in a study conducted by INFOSA in 2009.

The weak or lacking technical assistance in rural aquaculture is one of the constraints to

development of this activity. However, the INAQUA is using efforts to establish pilot units’

cultivation of fingerlings and demonstration centre and training in Chocke, Province Gaza

(INAQUA 2010).

7 CONCLUSIONS

The small hold fish farms in Mozambique are primarily small-scale extensive or semi-intensive

producers of tilapia and are still secondary and part-time activity. The total production of small

hold farms is low and the production is mainly for household consumption.

The decrease in production in recent years suggests that the small hold fish farms is marginal

activity, poorly integrated into the rest of their farming, badly managed, a tendency to

abandoned and less than optimal productivity.

The questionnaire is a very useful tool to assess the status of small hold aquaculture in

Mozambique. However, the questionnaire should be revised and improved.

Chirindza


8 RECOMMENDATIONS

The present questionnaire includes all small-scale aquaculture in Mozambique. However, the

survey was done in a rural area. Thus, should separate small hold fish farms from other types

of small-scale aquaculture. The followings suggestions were made:

a) Include number beneficiaries but not number of dependents;

b) GPS to indicate the geographical location of small hold fish farms;

c) The area of farm in square meters not average pond areas;

d) Separate feeding and fertilization and;

e) In Production, include the season of the year where farmer harvest fish, i.e. which

months in a year when farmer harvests fish for household consumption and how much

for each month.

The annexes show the old model questionnaire (annex 1) and suggestion of the new model

questionnaire (annex 2).

Chirindza


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My gratitude goes to the director of the UNU-FTP, Dr. Tumi Tomasson and his deputy Mr.

Thor Asgeirsson for giving me the opportunity to participate in this programme and their

valuable assistance, care and guidance before and during the project. Thanks go to Ms. Sigridur

Kr. Ingvarsdottir for all the administrative support.

To my supervisor, Prof. Helgi Thorarensen from Holar University College for his valuable

guidance and advice. I thank all the staff members of the National Institute of Aquaculture

Development for allowing and supporting my participation in this training course.

Special thanks go to Dr Isabel Omar, my director, for having given me leave, which made it

possible to accomplish this study.

Last, to my family for their great concern and love all the time that I spent in Iceland.

Chirindza


LIST OF REFERENCES

Aguilar-Manjarrez, J and Nath, S.S. (1998). A strategic reassessment of fish farming

potential in Africa. CIFA Technical paper. 32, FAO, Rome.

http:::www.fao.org:docrep:w8522e:w8522e00.htm.

Banze, I.S. (2005). Planning of sustainable small-scale aquaculture in Mozambique.

Fisheries Training Programme, United Nations University. Reykjavik, Iceland.

Boyd C.E. and Tucker C.S., (1998). Pond Aquaculture Water Quality Management, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston.

Brummett, R. E. And Williams M.J. (2000). The evolution of aquaculture in African rural

and economic development. In ecological economics. 33:193-203.

Brummett, R.E, Lazard, J. and Moehl, J. (2008). African aquaculture: Realizing the potential.

In Food Policy.33:371-385.

Carballo, E., Eer, A.v., Schie, T.v. and Hilbrands, A. (2008). Small-scale freshwater fish

farming. Agrodok 15.3ndedition. Printed by: Digigrafi, Wageningen, Netherlands. ISBN

Agromisa: 978-90-8573-077-4 /ISBN CTA: 978-92-9081-364-4.

Coche, A.G., B. Haight and M. Vincke (1994) Aquaculture development and research in sub

Saharan Africa. Synthesis of national reviews and indicative action plan for research. CIFA

Technical Paper. No. 23. Rome, FAO. 1994.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2006). Regional review on

aquaculture development 4. Sub-Saharan Africa – 2005. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1017/4.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2010a). Fishery Country Profile.

FAO, Rome. [September, 2010] http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/MOZ/profile.htm.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2010b). FAO inception workshop

of the FAO extra budgetary programme on fisheries and aquaculture for poverty alleviation

and food security. Rome, 27–30 October 2009. Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No.

930.FAO, Rome.

Fishstat. (2010). FAO, Rome. [September, 2010]

http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2007). Strengthening Agricultural

Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa from an innovation systems perspective: Case

studies of Ethiopia and Mozambique. IFPRI discussion paper 00736.

National Institute of Aquaculture Development (INAQUA) (2010). Annual report activities

in 2009, Maputo, Mozambique.

National Statistics Institute (INE) (2004). Final report. The survey on budget household 2002-

2003. Maputo. Mozambique.

http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/MOZ/profile.htm

http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp

Chirindza


National Statistics Institute (INE) (2010). General census population in 2007. [September

2010]www.ine.org.mz.

Machena, C. and Moehl, J. (2001). “Sub-Saharan African aquaculture: regional summary”. In

R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & J.R. Arthur, eds.

Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on

Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000: 341-

355. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.

Mapfumo B. (2009). The development of Small-scale freshwater aquaculture in

Mozambique.SARNISSA (Sustainable Aquaculture Research Networks in Sub-Saharan

Africa). EC FP7 Project,

Mapfumo B, Russell D, Hanoomanjee S, (2009). Elaboration of Small-scale Aquaculture

Development Plan for Mozambique. INFOSA (INFOPECHE regional office in SADC

Region), Windhoek, Namibia.

Menezes, A. (2001). The status of commercial shrimp farming in Mozambique. FAO

Fisheries Circular No. 971, FAO, Rome. pp. 177-205. FAO, Rome.

Ministry for the Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA). (2007). National

Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). Approved at 4 April 2007 in 32nd Session of

Council of Ministers. Maputo, Mozambique. Republic of Mozambique.

Ministry of Fisheries (MIPE) (2007). Aquaculture Development Strategy in Mozambique,

2008-2017. Approved at 21 August 2007 in 22nd Session of Council of Ministers, Maputo

Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique. Republic of Mozambique.

Ministry of Fisheries (MIPE) (2008). Annual report 2007. Aquaculture department. Maputo,

Mozambique.

Pillay, T. (1993). Aquaculture principles and practices, pp. 23-25. Oxford: Fishing News

Books.

Ribeiro, N. and Chaúque, A. (2010). Gender and Climate change: Mozambique case study.

Published by the Heinrich Boll Foundation Southern Africa, 123 Hope Street, Gardens 8001,

Cape Town.

Suresh, V. (2003). “Tilapias”.In Lucas, J.S and Southgate P.C.eds.Aquaculture: Farming

Aquatic Animals and Plants.pp.321-345. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,

Oxford.

Unite States Government (USG) 2010. Mozambique FY 2010. Implementation Plan.

Chirindza


ANNEX 1

REPUBLIC OF

MOZAMBIQUE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Institute of Aquaculture

INVESTIGATION OF BASIC INDICATORS FOR

SMALL SCALE AQUACULTURE

Date: / / The Inquirer______________________

YEAR____

__

__________

PROVINC

E

1. IDENTIFICATION OF FISH FARMER

If family, the name of the owner of the ponds: If associative, the name of the association:

Name of president:

Number of dependents : Number of members of the association:

Number of beneficiaries: Number of women associated:

Other sources of income:

Agriculture Livestock handicraft Coal production Carpentry

Others___________________________________________________________________________

_______________

Observation:

2. LOCATION

Location of ponds: Residence of fish farmers :

District: District:

Administrative post : Administrative post:

Locality: Locality:

Village: Village:

Walking distance or time between home and the fish farm:

Observation:

Fill in with block letters

In squares, fill with Y (yes) or N (no) In the questions unanswered or where the information is uncertain, complete with (-)

Chirindza


3. DESCRIPTION OF FISH FARM

Aquaculture in:

Earth ponds Floating cages Others

________________________________________

Farmed (s) specie (s):

Tilapia Carp

Others________________

Water used:

Fresh Salt

Brackish

Number of ponds/cages:

Used_____

Not used______

Dimension of the

ponds/cages (m2):

Year of start of

activity:

Initial number of

juveniles:

Feeding:

Food scraps Vegetables Nothing Corn bran Manure

Ration Sorghum Millet Rice

Other:_______________________

Harvest:

Fishing net With mosquito net C With hook Other fishing

gear____________________________

Maintenance status of aquaculture species: Good Acceptable

Poor

People involved in care of fish:

Family members Persons hired Members of the association Others

____________________

Observation:

4. PRODUCTION

Provision of

fingerlings:

Number of harvest :

Partial

harvest___________

Total

harvest____________

Quantity of harvest:

Partial

harvest_____________

Total

harvest_____________

Approximate size

or weight of fish:

Chirindza


Destination of fish produced:

Household Consunption or associated Sale for consumption Sale of juveniles

Other _____________

Observation:

5. TECHNICAL ASSISTENCE

During opening of

ponds/cages:

Yes No

In monitoring

ponds/cages:

Yes No

Source of assistance:

SDAE

DPP/SPP

Other:

________________

Frequency of

assistence:

Monthly

Quarterly

Semiannual

Annual

Observations:

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Is water entering the

ponds treated:

Yes No

Is water leaving the

ponds treated:

Yes No

Does the water leaving the ponds irrigate

land:

Yes No

The water in the ponds comes from:

Tap Well River Lake

Source Subsoil Estuary Sea

The cages are submerged in:

River Lake Estuary

Sea

Observation:

Chirindza


7. PROBLEMS FACED

No problems low a technical assistance Lack of technical

assistance

Difficulty in the aquiring fingerlings Difficulty in marketing Predators

Robbers or assolts on ponds/cages Others:

____________________________________________

Observations:

Chirindza


ANNEX 2

REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES Institute Of Aquaculture

A SURVEY OF SMALL SCALE RURAL AQUACULTURE

Date: / / The

Inquirer______________________

YEAR______

PROVINCE

________________

___

1. IDENTIFICATION OF FISH FARMER

If family, the name of the owner of the

ponds:

If association, the name of the association:

Name of president:

Number of beneficiaries: Number of members of the association:

Number of women associated:

Other sources of income:

Agriculture Livestock Handicraft Coal production Carpentry

Others_______________________________________________________________________________

_______

2. LOCATION

Geographical Location of ponds Residence of fish farmers :

Latitude District:

Latitude Administrative post:

Longitude Locality:

Longitude Village:

Walking time between home and the fish farm:

Observation:

Fill in with block letters In squares, fill with Y (Yes) or N (No)

In the questions unanswered or where the information is uncertain, complete with (-)

Chirindza


3. DESCRIPTION OF FISH FARM

Aquaculture in:

Earth ponds Floating cages Others

________________________________________

Farmed (s) specie (s):

Tilapia Carp

Others________________

Water used:

Fresh Brackish

Number of

ponds/cages:

Used_____

Not used______

Area of farm (m2): Year of start of activity: Stocked number of

juveniles:

Feeding:

Food scraps Vegetables

Millet bran

Fish feed Sorghum bran Rice

bran

Corn bran Nothing

Other:___________________________________

_______

Fertilization

Manure

Other_____________

___

Provision of finger

lingers/origins of fry:

Harvest:

Fishing net With mosquito net C With hook Other fishing

gear____________________________

Maintenance status of aquaculture species: Good Acceptable Poor

People involved in care of fish:

Family members Persons hired Members of the association Others

____________________

4. PRODUCTION

Season of the year

where farmer harvest a

lot of fish:

Number of harvest :

Partial

harvest__________

_

Quantity of harvest :

Partial

harvest_____________

Total

harvest_____________

weight of harvested fish:

Chirindza


Total

harvest__________

__

Destination of fish produced:

Household Consunption or associated Sale for consumption Other

_______________________________

Observation:

5. TECHCNICAL ASSISTENCE

During opening of

ponds/cages:

Yes

No

In monitoring

ponds/cages:

Yes

No

Source of assistance:

SDAE INAQUA

Other:

________________

Frequency of assistence:

Monthly Quarterly

Semiannual Annual

Observations:

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Is water entering the

ponds treated:

Yes No

Is water leaving the

ponds treated:

Yes No

Does the water leaving the ponds irrigate land:

Yes No

The water in the ponds comes from:

Well River Lake

Spring Subsoil

The cages are submerged in:

River Lake

Observation:

7. PROBLEMS FACED

No problems Lack or low technical assistance materials and tools for

pond construction

Difficulty in the aquiring fingerlings Water quality Difficulty in marketing

Predators

Robbers or assolts on ponds/cages Others:

____________________________________________

Chirindza


Observations:

a survey of small-scale rural aquaculture in · pdf filea survey of small-scale rural...

Documents